Supreme Court clarifies pension benefits for Acting Chief Justices: K. Sreedhar Rao vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: September 06, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 908

Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

Can an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court claim the same pension benefits as a permanent Chief Justice? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question regarding the pensionary benefits of Acting Chief Justices. This case delves into the interpretation of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and relevant constitutional provisions. The three-judge bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The petitioner, K. Sreedhar Rao, joined the Karnataka Judicial Service in 1988. He was elevated to the High Court of Karnataka in 2000 and later transferred to the Gauhati High Court as a puisne Judge. On August 13, 2014, he was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court under Article 223 of the Constitution of India. He served in this capacity for 14 months, retiring on October 20, 2015. During his tenure as Acting Chief Justice, he received the salary and allowances of a Chief Justice, as per the Second Schedule, Part-D, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Constitution and the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.

On July 20, 2015, the Gauhati High Court Registry sent documents for the fixation of the petitioner’s pension and gratuity to the Central Government. The petitioner claimed pension benefits equivalent to those of a Chief Justice. However, the Department of Law & Justice informed the High Court that the petitioner was not entitled to the higher pension ceiling of Rs. 5,40,000, which is available to a Chief Justice, and requested a revised pension report fixing the pension at Rs. 4,80,000 annually. The High Court Registry argued that under Rule 7 of Part-I of the First Schedule to the 1954 Act, the petitioner was entitled to the pension of a Chief Justice. Initially, the petitioner had elected to seek pension under Part-III of the First Schedule to the 1954 Act but later clarified that he sought pension under Part-I.

The Ministry of Law & Justice rejected the High Court’s contention, leading the petitioner to file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that he is entitled to pensionary benefits as a Chief Justice.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of several key legal provisions:

• Article 223 of the Constitution of India: This article allows for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice when the office of the Chief Justice is vacant or when the Chief Justice is unable to perform their duties.
• Part D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of India: Paragraph 10 specifies the salaries of High Court Judges, and Paragraph 11 states that the term “Chief Justice” includes an Acting Chief Justice for the purpose of salaries and perks.
• Section 2(1)(a) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: Defines “Acting Chief Justice” as a Judge appointed under Article 223 of the Constitution to perform the duties of the Chief Justice.
• Section 2(1)(g) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: Defines “Judge” to include the Chief Justice, Acting Chief Justice, an additional Judge and Acting Judge of the High Court.
• Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: This section specifies that every Judge shall, upon retirement, be paid a pension as per Part I of the First Schedule of the Act.
• Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: This part outlines the pension rules for judges who have not held any other pensionable post under the Union or a State, or who have elected to receive pension under this part.
• Rule 2 of Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: Specifies the pension payable to a Judge, with different rates for service as Chief Justice and service as any other Judge. It also sets the maximum pension limits for Chief Justices and other Judges.
• Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: States that for the purposes of Part I, service as an Acting Chief Justice shall be treated as service rendered as Chief Justice of a High Court.
• Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954: Applies to a Judge who has held any pensionable post under the Union or a State and has not elected to receive the pension payable under Part I.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that, as per paragraph 11 of Part D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of India, the term “Chief Justice” includes an Acting Chief Justice. Therefore, for pay and perks, an Acting Chief Justice is equivalent to a Chief Justice.
• The petitioner contended that Section 2(1)(a) of the 1954 Act defines an “Acting Chief Justice” as a Judge appointed under Article 223 to perform the duties of the Chief Justice.
• Relying on Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act, the petitioner submitted that service as an Acting Chief Justice should be treated as service rendered as a Chief Justice. Thus, he is entitled to all pensionary benefits available to a retired Chief Justice, including the maximum pension limit.
• The petitioner argued that the respondent wrongly considered his application under Part III of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act, whereas he had subsequently clarified that he was seeking pension under Part I.
• The petitioner distinguished the case of Union of India v. Syad Sarwar Ali (1998) 9 SCC 426, stating that it applied to a Judge who retired as a Judge and not as an Acting Chief Justice.
• The petitioner asserted that Part III of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act does not apply to a Judge who retires as an Acting Chief Justice, as it pertains to Judges who have held other pensionable posts and have not elected to receive pension under Part I.
• The petitioner emphasized that Section 14 of the 1954 Act, read with Rule 7 of the First Schedule, equates the service of an Acting Chief Justice to that of a Chief Justice for the purposes of Part I.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the petitioner, being a promotee Judge who retired as an Acting Chief Justice, is only eligible for pension under Part III of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act.
• The respondent contended that the petitioner initially applied for pension under Part III and is now claiming benefits under Part I as an afterthought.
• The respondent argued that paragraph 11 of Part D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution, read with Article 221, only equates an Acting Chief Justice to a Chief Justice for the purpose of salaries, not for pensionary benefits.
• The respondent submitted that Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act should be read with Rule 2 of Part I and that Rule 7 pertains to computation of pension, not the grant of equal pension benefits.
• The respondent argued that Rule 7 only counts the length of service of a Judge as an ad-hoc Judge or an Acting Chief Justice for pension computation purposes.
• The respondent distinguished between a Chief Justice appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution and an Acting Chief Justice appointed under Article 223, stating that the office of the Chief Justice remains vacant when an Acting Chief Justice is appointed.
• The respondent pointed out that an Acting Chief Justice does not take an oath of office, unlike a Chief Justice.
• The respondent relied on the case of Syad Sarwar Ali (supra), arguing that it held that an Acting Chief Justice is different from a Chief Justice.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner, who retired as an Acting Chief Justice, is entitled to the pensionary benefits that may be available to a retired Chief Justice?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Union of India v. Syad Sarwar Ali (1998) 9 SCC 426 – Supreme Court of India

Legal Provisions:

• Article 223 of the Constitution of India – Appointment of Acting Chief Justice
• Part D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of India – Salaries of High Court Judges
• Section 2(1)(a) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Definition of Acting Chief Justice
• Section 2(1)(g) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Definition of Judge
• Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Pension payable to Judges
• Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Pension rules for Judges
• Rule 2 of Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Pension payable to a Judge
• Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Service as Acting Chief Justice
• Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Pension rules for Judges with prior pensionable posts

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the case of Union of India v. Syad Sarwar Ali (1998) 9 SCC 426, stating that while the facts were different, the observations regarding the calculation of pension were relevant. The Court reiterated that an Acting Chief Justice appointed under Article 223 is not equivalent to a Chief Justice appointed under Article 217.
• The Court interpreted Article 223 of the Constitution of India to mean that an Acting Chief Justice is appointed to perform the duties of the Chief Justice when the office is vacant.
• The Court interpreted Part D of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of India to mean that an Acting Chief Justice is entitled to the salary and perks of a Chief Justice while serving in that capacity.
• The Court used Section 2(1)(a) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 to define the term “Acting Chief Justice.”
• The Court used Section 2(1)(g) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 to define the term “Judge.”
• The Court cited Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 to establish that every Judge shall be paid a pension as per Part I of the First Schedule of the Act.
• The Court used Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 to determine the applicable pension rules for Judges.
• The Court used Rule 2 of Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 to determine the pension payable to a Judge for service as Chief Justice and as any other Judge.
• The Court interpreted Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 to mean that service as an Acting Chief Justice is treated as service as a Chief Justice for pension computation purposes.
• The Court explained Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as applying to Judges who have held other pensionable posts and have not elected to receive pension under Part I.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Distinction between Salary and Pension: The Court emphasized that while an Acting Chief Justice is entitled to the salary of a Chief Justice during their tenure, this equivalence does not extend to pensionary benefits. The constitutional and statutory provisions treat these two aspects differently.
• Interpretation of Rule 7: The Court clarified that Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act is only for the computation of pension. It does not equate an Acting Chief Justice with a Chief Justice for all pensionary benefits. The service rendered as an Acting Chief Justice is considered as service rendered as a Chief Justice only for the purpose of calculating the pension amount, not for granting the same pension benefits as a Chief Justice.
• Purpose of Article 223: The Court noted that Article 223 of the Constitution provides for the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice to perform the duties of the Chief Justice when the office is vacant. This appointment is temporary and does not confer the status of a permanent Chief Justice.
• Limited Equivalence: The Court held that the equivalence between an Acting Chief Justice and a Chief Justice is limited to salary and perks during the tenure of the Acting Chief Justice. This equivalence does not extend to pensionary benefits.
• Statutory Interpretation: The Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the 1954 Act and the Constitution in a harmonious manner, giving due consideration to the specific language and purpose of each provision.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis

Logical Reasoning:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, who retired as an Acting Chief Justice, is not entitled to the pensionary benefits, including the ceiling, that are available to a retired Chief Justice. The Court clarified that the service rendered by the petitioner as an Acting Chief Justice for 14 months is to be considered as service rendered as a Chief Justice only for the purpose of computation of pension under Rule 2 of Part I of the First Schedule of the 1954 Act.

The Court stated:

“Therefore, for the purpose of computation of the pension as per Rule 2, the service rendered by a Judge as an Acting Chief Justice shall be treated as a service rendered as Chief Justice, i.e., Rs.1,21,575/- per annum.”

The Court further clarified:

“Even by virtue of the provisions of the 1954 Act, it is for the limited purpose for computation of the salary that Acting Chief Justice is treated as Chief Justice.”

The Court also observed:

“Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule cannot be read in isolation. Even Rule 7 specifically provides that for the purposes of this part – Part I, service as an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court shall be treated as though it were service rendered as Chief Justice of a High Court.”

The Court concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief and the declaration prayed for and dismissed the petition.

Key Takeaways

• An Acting Chief Justice is entitled to the salary and perks of a Chief Justice during their tenure but not to the same pensionary benefits.
• Service as an Acting Chief Justice is counted as service as a Chief Justice for the purpose of pension computation, but this does not equate to receiving the same pension as a retired Chief Justice.
• The distinction between an Acting Chief Justice appointed under Article 223 and a Chief Justice appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution is significant, particularly for pensionary benefits.
• The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 7 of Part I of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, limiting its application to pension computation and not to the grant of equal pension benefits.
• This ruling provides clarity on the pension entitlements of Acting Chief Justices, ensuring that the benefits are in accordance with the relevant laws and constitutional provisions.